| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone . | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 10 November 1997 through 2 February 1998, be removed from his record or moved to the restricted portion of his record. He also requests reconsideration for promotion to major.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, the adverse OER was given to him as a reprisal to his filing a complaint against his command for improper actions. He states that this OER is the only reason that he was not selected for promotion to major.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve (USAR) on 31 July 1987. He was promoted to captain on 30 July 1995.
The applicant received a sixth block, below center of mass OER for the period of 10 November 1997 through 2 February 1998. The senior rater stated that the applicant was not technically or mentally capable of performing the duties for which he was selected; that the applicant had been relieved of his position due to inappropriate behavior toward superiors and subordinates; that the applicant had improperly departed from his place of duty and improperly filed a complaint against the command.
The applicant nonconcured with the OER and appealed to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) on 26 July 2002. The OSRB review found no merit to the applicant’s contentions that he had not been aware of who his rater was, that the OER was on the wrong form, that the rater comments in Part IVb were inappropriate, that he had not been counseled during that rating period or that this OER was written as a reprisal for the applicant’s actions in filing a complaint. With the exception of removing a phrase from the senior rater’s comment, the OSRB found no merit to the applicant’s contentions.
The applicant has received 10 OERs during his period of service; two, including the evaluation in question, rated him at of below center of mass, six at center of mass and two at above center of mass.
Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system. Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provide that an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. Paragraph
9-7 of that regulation states that the burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant has provided no evidence that the OER in question was given as a reprisal to any action on his part.
2. There is no available evidence to show that this challenged OER is the sole reason that he was non-selected for promotion. The Board notes that out of 10 OERs the applicant had two below and two above center of mass with the remainder at center of mass. The Board is of the opinion that his overall performance record is a more likely reason for non-selection than this single OER he is appealing.
3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
| CASE ID | AR2002080992 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030619 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | Remove OER |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005798C070208
Robert Duecaster | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DAIG Report of Investigation noted that the applicant testified he did not believe his rater reprised against him. There is insufficient compelling evidence that the lack of counselings and lack of the rating official's support forms were the sole reasons behind the rater rating the applicant's performance as he did.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006408C070206
The applicant states, in a 20-page appeal, in effect, that the investigation conducted in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 was flawed and the substantiation of the findings of that report were flawed as well and resulted in an unjust characterization of his performance by his rater and SR in the contested report, as well as administrative errors. The rater gave the applicant maximum ratings and in Part V, under Performance and Potential Evaluation, he made comments to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050012937C070206
Her non-selection for continuation in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program by the 12 January 2004 Active Federal Continuation Board (AFSTCB) be set-aside; c. Her 30 September 2004 release from active duty (REFRAD) be set-aside and she be reinstated to active duty in the AGR with all back pay and allowances due; d. The 7 February 2003 General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) that was transferred to the restricted (R-Fiche) portion of her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) on 8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080171C070215
APPLICANT STATES : In a three page memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), that the OER for the period 13 July 1996 to 5 May 1997 [hereafter referred to as the contested OER], is substantively inaccurate and an unjust evaluation of his performance and potential. The Board determined that there is no evidence and the applicant has failed to provide evidence to support his contention that he received "diminished" ratings based on the Report of Survey. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064528C070421
The OSRB found that the rating officials, the entire command, and PERSCOM failed to refer the AER and that the review process was flawed because the commander’s inquiry was not conducted within the required time limit nor did the inquiry officer or PERSCOM identify the failure to refer the report. The OSRB determined that there was no error in the preparing officer’s comments in the evaluation about the complaints filed by the applicant with When an AER is a referred report, the reviewing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101192C070208
It is noted that the applicant received a center of mass rating during his first rating period as a recruiting battalion commander. The applicant's contentions concerning his performance as a recruiting battalion commander as compared to the other battalion commanders rated by his SR are noted. The SR had to evaluate the applicant against all those 35 officers, not just the other battalion commanders.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065032C070421
He requested that the OSRB change the senior rater profile block from the third to the second block on both reports and submit his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for reconsideration for promotion to major. • He stated that the 1994 Board decision which resulted in the senior rater potential evaluation being removed from the OERs did not result in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, that he was passed over for promotion by the March 1998 board, that 73 percent of his peers were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005553C070208
This request for reconsideration was made after he successfully appealed, in his counsel's words, "two Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), with non-credible senior rater (SR) profiles, after his separation from the Army." When the Board considered the applicant's case in February 2004, the OER that the applicant had successfully appealed contained the following senior rater profiles and senior rater comments: a. (On 9 September 1992, after the Reduction in Force Board had considered this...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057524C070420
The Inquiry Officer (IO) recommended a memorandum be prepared and sent to the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) requesting that the OER be returned to the rater for correction of Part Vd, promotion potential. He did so, but the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) returned the appeal without action. To present the whole truth, the comment should have been expanded to explain what he stole and why (“he took the company’s guidon to present to the former commander”).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064926C070421
He received all "Yes" entries in Part IV (Performance Evaluation - Professionalism), "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" in Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), and "Center of Mass" in Part VII b (Senior Rater – Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated by Same Grade). In Part VII a (Senior Rater – Rated Officer's Promotion Potential), he received a check in the second block, "Fully Qualified," the first block being labeled "Best Qualified." As a result of being...